A routine traffic stop at a busy Chandigarh crossing turned into a serious legal battle, and on December 9, the Punjab and Haryana High Court made it clear it was not inclined to short-circuit the process. Justice Surya Partap Singh dismissed a petition seeking quashing of an FIR against Parkash Singh Marwah, who is accused of impersonating a Judicial Magistrate and obstructing police officials during a traffic check.
Background
The FIR dates back to May 18, 2024. According to the police version, an ASI and a constable were checking vehicles near the Sector 45/46/49/50 crossing when they noticed a Scorpio with a partially covered number plate. When signalled to stop, the driver allegedly crossed the zebra crossing and refused to show his driving licence.
Police claim the driver introduced himself as a Judicial Magistrate, nodded affirmatively when questioned, and had a “Judge” sticker on the windshield. Matters escalated when, as per the FIR, he misbehaved with the constable and sped away. Verification later revealed that the vehicle did not belong to any magistrate.
Marwah approached the High Court contending that the case was fabricated. He claimed he was targeted because of complaints he had earlier filed against senior police and Chandigarh Administration officials. He also said the police officers were not in uniform and that he was illegally arrested two days later. On these grounds, he sought quashing of the FIR invoking the Court’s extraordinary powers under the new Bharatiya Nagrik Surakhsa Sanhita.
Court’s Observations
The Court was not persuaded. Justice Singh noted that the petitioner’s presence at the spot while driving the car was an admitted fact. Whether the police version or the petitioner’s account was true, the Court said, could only be decided after evidence is led at trial.
“The Court cannot, at this stage, weigh the reliability of competing versions,” the bench observed, adding that doing so in a quashing petition would risk a miscarriage of justice. The judge relied heavily on Supreme Court rulings which caution High Courts against interfering with investigations unless no offence is made out on the face of the FIR.
Read also:- Supreme Court Reserves Verdict on Karnataka Land Acquisition Dispute Involving S.V. Global Mill
On the argument that prosecution for obstructing a public servant (Section 186 IPC) was barred without a formal complaint, the Court held that the FIR also contained independent allegations of impersonation and cheating. These offences, the bench said, were capable of being separated and could proceed.
The plea of mental health immunity was also rejected. The Court noted that Marwah had not claimed any such condition at the time of the alleged incident. “Such a plea, if available, can be raised before the trial court,” the judge remarked.
Read also:- Supreme Court Bars Sub-Lessees From Reopening Eviction After Final Decree
Decision
In the end, the High Court found no exceptional circumstances to justify quashing the FIR. Holding that the investigation and trial must take their normal course, the Court dismissed the petition, along with all pending applications.
Case Title: Parkash Singh Marwah vs. State of UT Chandigarh & Others
Case No.: CRM-M No. 51611 of 2024 (O&M)
Case Type: Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (Quashing of FIR)
Decision Date: 09 December 2025
